JB- Are you referring to ‘Karaf Cave’ or ‘Karaf Runtime’?
I think with Karaf Runtime locking, the warm boot tends to be to not have all bundles active, for things that need to be singletons, such as scheduled jobs and pollers. The Karaf Runtime is running enough to be monitored, but generally not running any active workload. This is what I was referring to as ’standby’. I think ‘primary’ and ‘replica’ work great for replication use cases. -Matt > On Jul 27, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > No, I don’t think it’s accurate to Karaf. > > Standby means that the instance is not "active", but actually, in the case of > Karaf, it’s active and replicate the "master/active". > > That’s why I proposed primary/secondary. We can also use active/replica if > you think it’s more accurate. > > Regards > JB > >> Le 27 juil. 2020 à 18:26, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> My $0.02, the ‘primary’ ’secondary’ numeric-style terms can be misleading, >> since you can have multiple ’slave’ nodes and lock recovery is >> non-deterministic. So the ’secondary’ node doesn’t mean it is ’second’ in >> line to take over. >> >> Thoughts on aligning with the proposed terms same as ActiveMQ? >> >> master -> ‘active’ >> slave -> ’standby' >> >> -Matt Pavlovich >> >>> On Jul 27, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I would like to propose new wording in some Karaf designs: >>> >>> - In Karaf runtime, I would like to rename master/slave to primary/secondary >>> - in Cellar, I would like to rename blacklist/whitelist to allowlist and >>> deny list >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >> >
